Saturday, July 28, 2012

When
it comes to matters of morality, our main focus is on the human race.
We, theists and atheists alike, expect humans to behave in an
ethically responsible manner. Ethics, in its most simplistic form,
can be summed up as and divided into two levels: There are actions
that increase happiness, peace and harmony, and others that decrease
them or have opposite effects, such as sadness, pain and suffering.

Again, this is at its simplest form since I am fully aware that certain
actions may be blessings
in disguise
in the sense that they seem to foster happiness when, in fact, they
are destructive and vice versa. For example, we may smother a child
with love and rob their independent functioning in the outside world,
or we may punish and discipline them and they might suffer for a
while, but the benefits will eventually outweigh the negatives.
Incidentally, the ideal would be a harmonious balance between the
two.

Morality is mostly a relative issue and in some cases, we may commit
certain “bad” acts for ultimately “better” benefits, the
famous and controversial Machiavellian means
justifying the end.
I am not going into details on this point now but just want to underscore that absolute statements about morality, more often than not,
lead to a dead end, a cul-de-sac.

However,
animals seem to be exempt from those moral standards. Not that they
lack mental and rational functioning - in fact, I believe animals to
be generally more capable than what we give them credit for - but
because their “world” is quite different from ours. In order to
survive they must kill to eat. Animals do not have the moral choice
of becoming a vegetarian or cannot calculate their calories or how
much protein they need to consume to function on a day-to-day basis.

In
addition, there is no private property, there are no laws, except the
all-embracing “law of the jungle.” One of our main sticky points
that fills up tabloid papers and divorce court rooms is the matter of
sexuality and its (supposed?) link to morality. Animals act more on
their instincts than we do because if we did, we would get into
trouble.

From
an evolutionary perspective, we can say that morality was necessary
for our own survival but more importantly for the survival of our
species and civilization. From a religious point of view, at least
from a Christian perspective, it is the decree of God to reach
eternal salvation through an ominous and mysterious mix between faith
and morality, though bizarrely in some cases the former can override
the latter.

My
argument, however, is the following. I fully support morality from
the bottom of my heart, and I think it is the necessary link or glue
between religions and philosophies (sorry, Hedonism or your distant
cousin Nihilism). We need to behave in a responsible and respectful
manner toward ourselves, each other and our environment. Yet I
believe that morality and spirituality are not as compatible as they
appear to be.

Let
me explain. Morality - being good and leading a good life - can lead
to the realization of spirituality, call it the awakening of the
divine or God. So morality brings us closer to the Almighty or the
powers that be. But our problem lies in the fact that we expect this
special entity to be the same as us and to have the same conceptions
of morality. There is a serious case of anthropomorphic bias here.

Why
should higher levels of spirituality be held accountable to and limited by the rules
of the lower level? It is like animals insisting and demanding to
follow the law of the jungle. In my view, morality may lead to God
but breaks down on that level and becomes, from an enlightened point
of view, merely the babble of an infant.

I
am speaking of the unspeakable and ineffable place sometimes referred
to as TAO. Our human conception and understanding of the world may
merely be a stepping stone to higher dimensions. Look at our tiny
earth in proportion to the universe, and then we claim to have it all
figured out! We are the anthill in front of a skyscraper and expect
the latter to conform to our limited views and perspective.

If, as I
am claiming, spirituality can
be exempt from morality, or rather follow other rules and dictates
than the ones that exist for us, then a lot of conceptual problems
about ethics can be resolved, to some degree at least.

For
example, the problem of evil would not be an issue anymore. God will
not be omni-benevolent in a human sense. So the pain and suffering
exist for a reason beyond our grasp. Christianity has tried to
explain it in the form of free will, that we are to be blamed for it,
but that argument loses steam when we talk about children being
exposed to suffering. Original Sin or the Fall of Eden story just
won't suffice to explain this fact. Christians also use the phrase
that the Lord works in mysterious ways but that is saying nothing and
everything at the same time.

The
second problem that this view would resolve is the issue of
determinism. To have morality at all, we need to be aware and held
accountable for our own actions. A person who is mentally ill cannot
necessarily judge right from wrong (though some may fake it to get
out of prison). But let us look at it with a concrete example. If I
get intoxicated, get drunk or high and commit a horrible deed under
the influence, say kill someone, I may not be directly responsible
for the act since it was most likely not premeditated or planned,
but at least I am responsible in the sense that I chose to get
intoxicated.

Now
let us add a twist to it. What if somebody against my will and
knowledge spikes my drink with a certain substance that leads to the
consequent murder. Now I was not aware of what I was doing and cannot
be held responsible for my actions. And let us add that the guy who
spiked my drink was not even invited to the party!

This
would also solve a personal dilemma I have with morality. What if,
and I am influenced by deterministic philosophy here, we do not have
free will or a choice at all. We do not choose our genes nor our
parents nor our place of birth and have rather limited control over
our experiences in daily life. What if some of us are simply born with a
brain defect that makes us relish evil acts and blocks the circuit to
our sense of compassion.

While,
on the other side of the spectrum, there would be people who have
the “privilege” of being born and bred with love and goodness all
around them. Can we really blame or reward the one over the other?
Does the other lose all their spirituality and often their humanity
as a result of matters outside of their control? Is that a just way
of seeing the world, of judging people? I believe in my idealistic
heart that no one in their right mind would want to purposely hurt or
cause suffering to others.

So
let us bring it all together now. Morality and spirituality may be
cousins, but they are not one and the same. In other words, a person
who may act in evil ways still contains that level of spirituality
whether he knows it or no, whether he acts upon it or not. This is, I
must admit, a very Buddhist understanding of human nature, but it
helps us explain that everything is spiritual due to the fact of its
mere existence.

It
is a hopeful view that perhaps one day hatred will be eliminated and
that there is a level where the accuser and accused, the perpetrator
and the victim can hug each other and can talk about their
experiences over afterlife-coffee, free of physical or emotional
turmoil. Yes,
remember those days on earth.
I am
sorry for what I did.
Oh,
you don't have to be.
It's
not really your fault after all.

No
hellfire, no purgatory, only idle chat about a life of illusion that
occurred eons ago on a distant planet called earth.

Google Website Translator Gadget

Goodreads

A simple and straightforward overview of psychoanalysis with a focus on child psychology. Anna Freud's style is clear, compassionate and engaging.
I was quite interested in learning about the differences between the psychoanalytic treat...

Each / either field (Zen Buddhism / Psychoanalysis) is fascinating on its own terms but one day I felt that they were intimately and intricately connected and that turns out to be true! Although the book as a brief and general survey mer...